Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.orgNote: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your
letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish
them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:"
header!]

With the NDAA, Neocons and the Administration beating the war drums
against Iran (and to be fair, the Iranians egging them on) plus other
depressing news it is nice to run into some good news.

For the last couple of years I have noticed that the local police have
supported people's right to forcibly defend themselves. About a decade
ago they were admitting we had such a right then would proceed to warn
us not to engage in vigilantism. Now they simply state that people
have shot, knifed or clubbed someone in self defense and that the
police do not expect to file charges.

The report last Wednesday/Thursday (Jan. 4-5, 2012) that a young
widow in Oklahoma successfully defended her child, home, and self by
force and enjoyed the support of the local authorities for doing so is
heartening. I won't read more into this than it is, but it is worth
noting that some cops somewhere are expressing support for people's
right to defend themselves instead of telling us to act like helpless
bunny rabbits.

"Encouraging people to do small things to "reduce their government
footprint" will also make them more receptive to libertarian ideas in
the future and grow a base of sympathetic individuals from whom the
movement can draw support. "

Unfortunately, the "green" people mostly encourage an emotional response
to phony issues through lies and manipulation. Your recycling example is
classic. Their agenda is greater control of people, their property and
the world in general. These are not the methods or goals of libertariansor
anyone else who values freedom and justice.

How do you see the connection? What are some things we can encourage
people to do to "reduce their government footprint" as you suggest? I'm
wondering if you have some new and different ideas, since you didn't
offer any examples.

Do we resort to emotional appeals? Based on what?

Look at some of these:
The Mental Militia
ZeroGov
The War on Guns
Backwoods Home

The list is almost endless.

Some of us have little to do with "Libertarians" as such, but all of us
have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to reach people with
the basic message of self ownership and responsibility.

Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar AKA El Cid Campeador is Spain's
greatest Medieval hero. He fought for Christian Kings and was himself
a Christian. He also fought for Moslem kings and established what for
all practical purposes a private kingdom populated by both Moslems and
Christians living in relative amity. Would he have been detained under
the NDAA? Good luck on that, the bucchaill was a bit of a bad ass.

I have publicly stated that I will forcibly defend the rights of
Moslems under the First Amendment to practice their faith.
Realistically, that means I've pledged to get my ass kicked trying to
defend my Moslem brothers' rights. Also my Catholic, Baptist, Mormon,
Jewish and other brethren and sisteren's rights. Am I really worth
detaining? Geez, y'must be bored with yourself.

Under the new NDAA it is so easy for anyone in the US to be declared a
supporter of terrorists and an enemy combant. Will Mitch Romney or Ron
Paul be detained indefinitely sometime next August? Or maybe the Obama
cabinet if the Republicans take over. Or maybe the army will have an
attack of common sense and detain all the gecko humping children of
motherless goats who voted for the NDAA as the terrorists and enemies
of the United States they are. One can always hope.

Dr. Franklin warned us of the folly of trading freedom for security.
But no one ever warned us about trading freedom to obtained
insecurity. Guess sane men could not imagine anyone doing anything
that stupid.

No, Ron's video is neither dangerous nor misleading. You just can't
take the plain, hard truth. As I was asking people a decade ago, what
would you do if some superior power arbitrarily told Americans that
they couldn't fly below the Mason-Dixon Line? What would you do if
those superior powers blockaded America until half a million children
died for lack of food and medicine?

You'd fight back, if there's anything to you.

And your contention that only Al Qaeda would benefit from Ron's
foreign policy is not only insulting, it's insane. Three hundred
million Americans would benefit, as would seven billion human beings
in general. The only "danger" involved is the danger of people
enjoying too much peace, freedom, progress, and prosperity than you
believe they should have.

Sadly, conservatives appear to be no better than liberals, in that
they have no honor, no sense of equity. They're willing to impose
themselves on others (at a brutal cost to everyone else around them),
and yet they cry like little babies if those others impose themselves
upon them. And they hate an opponent who actually fights back, whether
it's in the middle east or in Iowa.

So answer me this, are shuls in Israel gun free zones? Why then in
America, where besides potential Muslim extremists there is also
danger of attack by the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, and the Aryan Nation
types, are synagogues being declared gun free zones? Was there not a
case in Vienna back around 1980-81where one armed man broke up a PLO
attack on a synagogue? Why then do (some) American Jews buy into the
no gun myth. To be fair, so do most Christian clergy, yet they and
their congregations face the same risks.

Recently on the History Channel it was pointed out that "Bless his
heart," is a nice way of saying "That boy's a little slow in the
head." G-d bless these rabbis, priests, and ministers' hearts.